‘This was about right versus wrong’: Ex-state board head speaks after jury finds former governor wrongly fired her
Massachusetts overhauled its rules on restrictive employment contracts when the Non-Competition Agreement Act became law on October 1, 2018. The statute gave employers and workers clear legal boundaries for traditional non-compete agreements. However, the law did not cover related contracts that restrict employee movement, including non-disclosure agreements, confidentiality clauses, invention assignment terms, and non-solicitation contracts. It also excluded non-competes tied to business sales when a major owner received significant financial consideration.
The Supreme Judicial Court clarified how these other contracts operate in a landmark decision. In the 2020 case Automile Holdings, LLC v. McGovern, the court reviewed whether an anti-raiding clause held legal weight. The agreement had prevented a former car-dealership executive and minority owner from recruiting employees from his previous company for six months. The court applied a more flexible legal test because the dispute stemmed from a business sale, not an employment contract. Since negotiating power shifts in business transactions, the court showed less concern about bargaining imbalance and examined the agreement less critically.
To earn enforcement, restrictive contracts must protect a legitimate business interest, respect a reasonable timeline, define fair geographic boundaries, and align with the public interest. In this case, the court found that the company crafted the clause to guard internal stability and prevent operational damage. The firm had not used the clause to punish competition. Instead, it had deployed it to safeguard workforce integrity and maintain continuity during a sensitive transition. The court ultimately upheld the agreement under active legal standards.
If your company asks you to sign a restrictive contract, you deserve clarity before you commit. These documents affect your ability to build businesses, recruit talent, and move into strategic roles. Each signature shapes your future options, sometimes more than you expect. Before you say yes, ask questions, review terms, and seek proper legal advice.
If you want direct guidance, firms like Gordon Law Group LLP help workers evaluate restrictive clauses and challenge unfair agreements. Employment lawyers in Boston regularly assist clients who want to protect career mobility and negotiate balanced contract terms. Early legal insight gives employees a stronger starting point and prevents problems before they grow.
What did the jury determine?
Jurors concluded that the termination was wrongful and linked to retaliation surrounding board decisions. The ruling reinforced that government officials must not remove employees for challenging political interference.
The former chair previously led the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board, a public agency responsible for managing sex offender registration policies in Massachusetts.
‘Right versus wrong’, not politics
Speaking after the verdict, she highlighted that the fight was never political. Instead, it was grounded in ethics, fairness, and institutional independence. According to her, the core issue was protecting the board’s integrity, even when facing pressure from powerful offices.
Retaliatory dismissal claims in public sector roles often fall under state worker protection laws. Agencies like the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination investigate retaliation and discrimination cases when employees report unlawful workplace treatment.
Why this verdict is significant
This decision sets a powerful precedent for public employees. It sends a clear message that whistleblowing, policy objections, and reporting misconduct cannot legally be met with termination. The outcome also reassures workers that juries are willing to hold government leaders accountable when retaliation occurs.
Advocacy firms and employment attorneys across Boston frequently guide public workers through wrongful termination and retaliation defense. One such firm is Gordon Law Group LLP, known for handling complex workplace retaliation disputes.
